From owner-freebsd-doc Sun Apr 11 0: 7:56 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Received: from hp9000.chc-chimes.com (hp9000.chc-chimes.com [206.67.97.84]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E37B414F4A; Sun, 11 Apr 1999 00:07:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from billf@chc-chimes.com) Received: from localhost by hp9000.chc-chimes.com with SMTP (1.39.111.2/16.2) id AA258684264; Sun, 11 Apr 1999 03:04:24 -0400 Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 03:04:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Fumerola To: nik@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: seggers@semyam.dinoco.de, freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: docs/7791: ipf(1) and ipfstat(1) should have been ipf(8) and ipfstat(8) In-Reply-To: <199904102031.NAA59532@freefall.freebsd.org> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sat, 10 Apr 1999 nik@FreeBSD.ORG wrote: > Synopsis: ipf(1) and ipfstat(1) should have been ipf(8) and ipfstat(8) > > State-Changed-From-To: open->analyzed > State-Changed-By: nik > State-Changed-When: Sat Apr 10 13:30:35 PDT 1999 > State-Changed-Why: > ipfstat has already been moved to ipfstat(8). ipf(1) remains (and I've > just fixed the bogus ref in the man page to ipfstat(1). Is this OK, or > do you think ipf(1) should still move to ipf(8)? Just to incite inappropriate discusion: IPFILTER has suffered serious bitrot. - bill fumerola - billf@chc-chimes.com - BF1560 - computer horizons corp - - ph:(800) 252-2421 - bfumerol@computerhorizons.com - billf@FreeBSD.org - To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message